Tebow ad exposes the intolerance of the “tolerant” Left

posted at 11:00 am on February 2, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Sally Jenkins, a pro-choice columnist for the Washington Post, writes a devastating essay today on the reaction from her side of the abortion issue to the Super Bowl ad featuring Tim Tebow that celebrates choosing life. Jenkins says she couldn’t disagree more with Tebow on the issue of abortion, but cannot believe the kind of knee-jerk overreaction coming from NOW, which Jenkins presumes refers to “National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us.” Jenkins says the overwrought reaction exposes the intolerance of the supposedly tolerant Left and shows that so-called “pro-choice” groups are really more pro-abortion:

I’m pro-choice, and Tebow clearly is not. But based on what I’ve heard in the past week, I’ll take his side against the group-think, elitism and condescension of the “National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time.” For one thing, Tebow seems smarter than they do.

Tebow’s 30-second ad hasn’t even run yet, but it already has provoked “The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us” to reveal something important about themselves: They aren’t actually “pro-choice” so much as they are pro-abortion. Pam Tebow has a genuine pro-choice story to tell. She got pregnant in 1987, post-Roe v. Wade, and while on a Christian mission in the Philippines, she contracted a tropical ailment. Doctors advised her the pregnancy could be dangerous, but she exercised her freedom of choice and now, 20-some years later, the outcome of that choice is her beauteous Heisman Trophy winner son, a chaste, proselytizing evangelical.

Pam Tebow and her son feel good enough about that choice to want to tell people about it. Only, NOW says they shouldn’t be allowed to. Apparently NOW feels this commercial is an inappropriate message for America to see for 30 seconds, but women in bikini selling beer is the right one. I would like to meet the genius at NOW who made that decision. On second thought, no, I wouldn’t.

As for those who say the Super Bowl is no forum for personal perspectives on life, Jenkins offers a particularly compelling counterargument:

His critics find this intrusive, and say the Super Bowl is no place for an argument of this nature. “Pull the ad,” NOW President Terry O’Neill said. “Let’s focus on the game.”

Trouble is, you can’t focus on the game without focusing on the individuals who play it — and that is the genius of Tebow’s ad. The Super Bowl is not some reality-free escape zone. Tebow himself is an inescapable fact: Abortion doesn’t just involve serious issues of life, but of potential lives, Heisman trophy winners, scientists, doctors, artists, inventors, Little Leaguers — who would never come to be if their birth mothers had not wrestled with the stakes and chosen to carry those lives to term. And their stories are every bit as real and valid as the stories preferred by NOW.

Shouldn’t tolerance include hearing opposing viewpoints, or at least allowing them to be aired in public forums? After all, tolerance means putting up with something, not agreeing with it. If the only ideas we allowed to air publicly were those that had almost-total consensus, that’s not tolerance but political correctness — a rhetorical straitjacket that goes against the very idea of free speech.

When groups like NOW want to silence people like the Tebows, they’re doing so to protect their own turf. The ad asks people to choose life, not to ban abortion. If NOW really was pro-choice, they’d see nothing invalid about showing the end result of one choice and the faith that carried the Tebows from that terrifying diagnosis to the pinnacle of athletic and scholarly success. Tebow represents hope in the midst of hopelessness. NOW doesn’t want people to have hope; they want women to buy abortions, and this ugly response has made that crystal clear.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Are you guys interested in changing minds on the abortion issue? Do you wish to impact public policy? By your logic, in order to change minds, you’ll need to convert folks first. Spewing bible verses and making religious arguments regarding abortion to those who aren’t particularly religious (or maybe only nominally religious) is a loser. Again, UNDERSTAND YOUR AUDIENCE. Who in the hell are you trying to convince that abortion on demand should be outlawed and what is the best way to accomplish that goal?

dakine on February 2, 2010 at 1:46 PM

Here is something that will surprise you.

Many centuries ago, Darwin proposed the theory of evolution, which caught on really well with the Godless crowd. There was a big hullabaloo about scientific breakthroughs and the advancement of man’s understanding, but the joke was actually on them, because, at the time, they were of the mind that at the smallest level, living beings were rather bland things, kinda like a bag filled with juices that served no real purpose other than mystically sustaining the being they were a part of.

Fast forward a few centuries, and it looks bad. We know now how mind-bogglingly complex even the smallest life-forms are, and how stunningly intricate the cells that comprise our bodies have to be to perform their functions. Honest biologists will tell you that you don’t get rotors and pistons and cellular factories from a blob that somehow begins to crystallize into a cohesive engine to sustain life, but a lot of people don’t want to admit that.

They don’t want to admit the complexity of day to day existence strikes down the chance that it’s all really just a random chance.

They dislike the idea that they might actually have someone to thank for creating them, and the world they live in.

They hate the notion that science, despite their best efforts, might support the notion that we were designed with DESIGN IN MIND, and not some freak accident repeatedy several trillion billion times over.

So they refuse that notion…. and in doing so, make themselves not scientists, but idealogues, which is fine – but let’s call a spade and spade.

The end point is that even Darwin himself said “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” He had a sneaking feeling that we, as men and women educated in the most advanced nation on Earth, can confirm in modern days with shocking clarity.

But it doesn’t stop the Godless crowd, and it won’t.

Why argue on the enemy’s terms? Call a spade a spade. Leftist fools will defend amino acids and protein chains as life all damn day to defend their position, and then turn around, on the next table, and slice a baby open and suck his or her brain out, or dip the “clump of cells” – hi, Jim – in a strong saline solution.

Godless. Why call it anything else? I refuse to play by the enemy’s rules.

–And telling people who are considering abortion that they’re evil monsters and that you want to have politicians executed if they won’t make abortion illegal should probably wait for your second or third conversation. Just a helpful hint.

Jimbo3 on February 2, 2010 at 1:50 PM

Well, you are. An evil monster, that is.

So you’re both idiots, and I’ll tell you why. You’re already decided. You want to believe it. There’s no changing your minds, and I don’t care to change them.

The only ones to convince are the people who recoil at the thought, and wonder, truly, why are we so quick to kill a “clump of cells” but are adamant about how little protein chains constitute life?

Point taken Ris4. My unhidden disdain arises out of not liking to be preached to, and I’m not really equivocating because I’m not really looking to change any minds. Again, there are lots of nominally pro-choice types out there who are probably open to having their minds changed, unless they are beat over the head with bible verses and fire and damnation.

And a woman who has an abortion is NOT NOT NOT an evil monster – who said such a thing? We are all sinners, every one, just in different arenas.

Ris4victory on February 2, 2010 at 1:58 PM

Jim likes to screw around with people’s words to make them seem wicked and snarling. It’s standard leftist propoganda work, don’t take it to heart. Really, he’s talking about me, if you’re curious, and keeps trying to tell everyone that I’m out to kill him.

Really, though, Jim is very useful. The more he speaks, the plainer his insanity becomes for all to see. I simply grieve that it is not plain to him as well.

Jimbo3 strikes me as a big boy – I don’t think anonymous blogs are too worrisome for him – he tries to be very provocative on every hot button topic on HA (and for all appearances he seems to do it for fun’s sake) – I skim past his posts b/c I don’t learn anything from him. He is kind of like ANNINCA, another poster I skim over -too generic.

Now, crr6 – I learn A LOT from this one – the level of hatred, self loathing and depravity leaking from this one’s keystrokes keeps me keenly aware of what America is up against now and in the coming years. I hope he/she keeps typing – it fuels my resolve.

I aim to please! And unlike you, I’m happy to tell everyone everything I said, again, and again, if it is called for, because I am not afraid of the truth. o.0 You think you aren’t, but that’s because you’re living a lie.

Jim likes to screw around with people’s words to make them seem wicked and snarling. It’s standard leftist propoganda work, don’t take it to heart. Really, he’s talking about me, if you’re curious, and keeps trying to tell everyone that I’m out to kill him.

Really, though, Jim is very useful. The more he speaks, the plainer his insanity becomes for all to see. I simply grieve that it is not plain to him as well.

KinleyArdal on February 2, 2010 at 2:08 PM

–And, hey, admit it. You (and others, like me) do like coming here and debating people. You (and others, sometimes like me) say things here that I’m sure you (or I) would never dare say in person to anyone in your town. So this is a very useful forum and we should thank Ed, Michelle, AllahPundit, etc. for allowing us to yell/debate relatively freely.

“Pull the ad,” NOW President Terry O’Neill said. “Let’s focus on the game.”

Isn’t this the same NOW that pushed the phony statistic that domestic violence increased during the Super Bowl broadcast? Now they want to shut down a commercial ostensibly because it distracts people from the (violence inducing) game.

–And, hey, admit it. You (and others, like me) do like coming here and debating people. You (and others, sometimes like me) say things here that I’m sure you (or I) would never dare say in person to anyone in your town. So this is a very useful forum and we should thank Ed, Michelle, AllahPundit, etc. for allowing us to yell/debate relatively freely.

Look Kinley, you’re obviously way, way gone deep into your cocoon of fundamentalism, so attempting to engage you in any meaningful way on logical and reasonable terms is a lost cause for sure. I’m not interested in any event. Try this on for size though: if you are truly interested in ending abortion on demand, then “your side” is going to need to change the minds of folks who are currently pro-choice. Many of these folks aren’t particularly religious, or maybe only nominally so, or maybe follow a brand of Christianity different from yours. In any event, such folks aren’t likely to be swayed by the type of fundamentalist, fire and brimstone arguments I’m guessing you normally engage in. There are moral (and yes, scientific and logical) arguments to made against abortion on demand which don’t require invocation of the bible and Christian theology. But then maybe you’re really only interested in advancing your narrow definition of THE TRUTH and don’t really care all that much about the unborn. You can’t have it both ways Kinley without being a hypocrite, or worse.

–And, hey, admit it. You (and others, like me) do like coming here and debating people. You (and others, sometimes like me) say things here that I’m sure you (or I) would never dare say in person to anyone in your town. So this is a very useful forum and we should thank Ed, Michelle, AllahPundit, etc. for allowing us to yell/debate relatively freely.

Jimbo3 on February 2, 2010 at 2:12 PM

I speak my mind boldly, everywhere I go, because that’s the only way to live. I’ve lost friends over it in some cases, gained them in others, but I let the chips fall where they may. To do otherwise would really not be living, in my opinion.

Look Kinley, you’re obviously way, way gone deep into your cocoon of fundamentalism, so attempting to engage you in any meaningful way on logical and reasonable terms is a lost cause for sure. I’m not interested in any event. Try this on for size though: if you are truly interested in ending abortion on demand, then “your side” is going to need to change the minds of folks who are currently pro-choice. Many of these folks aren’t particularly religious, or maybe only nominally so, or maybe follow a brand of Christianity different from yours. In any event, such folks aren’t likely to be swayed by the type of fundamentalist, fire and brimstone arguments I’m guessing you normally engage in. There are moral (and yes, scientific and logical) arguments to made against abortion on demand which don’t require invocation of the bible and Christian theology. But then maybe you’re really only interested in advancing your narrow definition of THE TRUTH and don’t really care all that much about the unborn. You can’t have it both ways Kinley without being a hypocrite, or worse.

dakine on February 2, 2010 at 2:16 PM

I am always terribly amused, but never impressed, by opposition giving me advice on how to win. Stop, and think about it.

1. I didn’t say anything either supporting or denouncing NOW. I was speculating what the other hawk was driving at.

2. I don’t think I have ever agreed with a single thing Jimbo3 has ever written on Hot Air, so I’m not sure what you meant by “stop making argue the same side” as Jimbo3. It really sounds like you’re the one agreeing with his point. But again (and for the last time) I’M NOT SAYING THE 1ST AMENDMENT APPLIES TO PRIVATE CITIZENS OR CORPORATIONS!!!

3. Sure I’ve participated in boycotts before. I still boycott a lot of what is produced by Hollywood. What’s your point? As long as I don’t assert other can’t do the same thing, I don’t see any problem with that.

Here’s some advise for you; if you don’t get that most Christians feel the protection they try to extend to the unborn comes from the heart before any consideration to science is even given, then you’re not really in any position to advise us of anything. It’s based on faith.

Here’s the next paragraph. It deals with the issue of free speech generally and is not about Tebow being a college football player:

Let me be clear again: I couldn’t disagree with Tebow more. It’s my own belief that the state has no business putting its hand under skirts. But I don’t care that we differ. Some people will care that the ad is paid for by Focus on the Family, a group whose former spokesman, James Dobson, says loathsome things about gays. Some will care that Tebow is a creationist. Some will care that CBS has rejected a gay dating service ad. None of this is the point. CBS owns its broadcast and can run whatever advertising it wants, and Tebow has a right to express his beliefs publicly. Just as I have the right to reject or accept them after listening — or think a little more deeply about the issues. If the pro-choice stance is so precarious that a story about someone who chose to carry a risky pregnancy to term undermines it, then CBS is not the problem.

I wasn’t even going to watch the Super Bowl. But now I will just so I can see this commercial that NOW is making such a fuss about. Now that NOW has me thinking about it, I will now also encourage 100 high school students to watch it so they can enjoy the message from Pam and Tim Tebow. Now my students will be able to see what NOW is so fearful of. Thanks NOW, I’m sure your hollering has helped many people make a similar decision to tune in and perhaps make a decision FOR life. Now that’s what I call a job well done.

Are you guys interested in changing minds on the abortion issue? Do you wish to impact public policy? By your logic, in order to change minds, you’ll need to convert folks first. Spewing bible verses and making religious arguments regarding abortion to those who aren’t particularly religious (or maybe only nominally religious) is a loser. Again, UNDERSTAND YOUR AUDIENCE. Who in the hell are you trying to convince that abortion on demand should be outlawed and what is the best way to accomplish that goal?

dakine on February 2, 2010 at 1:46 PM

Are you actually arguing that only secular arguments are effective?
As I pointed out, the vast majority of people in this country are not secular in their outlook.

I don’t believe Bible verses typed here in moderation are preachy – but I would agree that even I do not like to be preached to, unless I request help. I thought the verses I quoted were relevant to the discussion & the Bible is an awesome guide in one’s quest to ATTEMPT to live morally.

Yet, in the end, in your gut you know right from wrong. A thief knows that stealing is wrong; a drug addict knows that abusing their body is wrong; a woman who has her baby dismembered and suctioned out of her womb knows it is wrong. She may not acknowledge this for a long time, but she knows.

Depravity, like other societal “disorders” is a learned thing (i.e. child abusers are often victims of domestic abuse themselves). There are some peeps that are truly born “bad” or without a conscience, but for the most part, if you are taught that babies are not alive then you grow up with that failed logic wedged in your brain.

Genocide is powered by propaganda, as is most evil. Making something legal does not make it acceptable. 50 million dead Americans is not acceptable.

I speak my mind boldly, everywhere I go, because that’s the only way to live. I’ve lost friends over it in some cases, gained them in others, but I let the chips fall where they may. To do otherwise would really not be living, in my opinion.

KinleyArdal on February 2, 2010 at 2:16 PM

–Do you live in a small town in Nebraska (if you care to share that information)? I would think being as blunt as you’ve been would be problematic in a small town. I lived in a medium sized town, and wouldn’t have made a whole lot of friends if I said things as bluntly as you did. That’s not saying that the message itself couldn’t have been delivered. Just that it would have needed some repackaging.

They want to have it taken off the air completely. Their hope was that they had enough people to raise enough ruckus to pressure CBS to fold. Miscalculation on their part. They have given the Tebows lots of free publicity. As usually happens when boycotts are announced publicly.

Lily on February 2, 2010 at 1:48 PM

The publicity is good for both sides. A mother speaking up for life is a positive message. In Tebow’s specific case it also allows people to think through the additional risks that a mother incurs with a placental abrution. Pam Tebow made a rational choice that worked out well for her. Other mothers in similar circumstances can learn from her story and consider the options and their consequences.

You’re way, way overthinking me and my point Kinley. Frankly, I’m not really the “opposition”. Simply making an observation. You’re the one engaged in some sort of holy war. Not that it matters, and I really hate labels as a general matter, but I’m an independent politically. If forced to put a label on my political beliefs, I’d say Goldwater type conservative with a pretty strong libertarian bent, particularly on social issues. I’m your target audience on the abortion issue. I’m nominally pro-choice if you really pushed me to identify my position, but open to changing my mind. I think that Roe v. Wade is poor law. I see no right to abortion specifically, or privacy generally, in the Constitution. The issue should be left to the states. For me, abortion on demand then boils down to legal, scientific and moral definitions of “life” and a balancing test between the rights of the mother and the fetus. I haven’t been convinced to date, but could be swayed to believe that the rights of the fetus attach at conception, in which case abortion on demand should be strictly prohibited.

Hopefully, you’re more concerned with unborn babies than advancing fundamentalism and theocratic notions of governance.

–Do you live in a small town in Nebraska (if you care to share that information)? I would think being as blunt as you’ve been would be problematic in a small town. I lived in a medium sized town, and wouldn’t have made a whole lot of friends if I said things as bluntly as you did. That’s not saying that the message itself couldn’t have been delivered. Just that it would have needed some repackaging.

Jimbo3 on February 2, 2010 at 2:28 PM

My order of priority -> Speaking the truth -> making friends. Sometimes, it doesn’t work out. That’s the way the cookie crumbles.

Abortion is not an issue that was brought up yesterday. It’s been with us for quite a while. I have little idea what “convincing” you require at this point, frankly, because it’s all already out there, swirling about, and I’d be good and proper shocked if I was the first to get in your face about it.

Tebow’s ad, by the way, never mentions abortion; like the player himself, it’s apparently soft-spoken. It simply has the theme “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life.” This is what NOW has labeled “extraordinarily offensive and demeaning.”
I hardly think this will be the most “inappropriate for the children” ad you’ll see all night.
Quisp on February 2, 2010 at 12:00 PM

Thanks for the info. I’m totally fine with this.

Did you really just bust out the “because of the children” argument? You have a problem with the topic of abortion being broadcast during the Super Bowl “because of the children” but not alcohol use/abuse and mostly naked women being pranced about? REALLY?
Dominion on February 2, 2010 at 12:28 PM

Are YOU serious? No child is going to be damaged by being exposed to freaking beer ads or cheerleaders (as long as there’s no crotch grabbing I could not care less).

On the other hand, try explaining abortion to a young child. That is a horror no child should have to think about.

And a woman who has an abortion is NOT NOT NOT an evil monster – who said such a thing? We are all sinners, every one, just in different arenas.

Ris4victory on February 2, 2010 at 1:58 PM
If Jimbo couldn’t mischaracterize his opponents arguments, he would quickly run out of things to say.

MarkTheGreat on February 2, 2010 at 2:28 PM

The honest reply is that the Right believes it to be murder.

What the flying hell do you want them to say?

If a man believes you are killing a baby, what’s he supposed to say? “Erm, I, uh, I think we need to talk about this…. I, uh, I feel… disconcerted about the idea that we, uh, well please don’t hate me but I think you’re hurting living human children ; ;”

Here’s some advise for you; if you don’t get that most Christians feel the protection they try to extend to the unborn comes from the heart before any consideration to science is even given, then you’re not really in any position to advise us of anything. It’s based on faith.

hawkdriver on February 2, 2010 at 2:22 PM

Look hawk, I like you and am really not trying to get into a flame war on this thing with you. I totally get what you are saying regarding faith and your position on abortion. I’m simply trying to make the point that in order to achieve the goal of ending abortion on demand in this country, you are going to need to convince folks who may not share your version of faith to change their minds. In other words, you’ll need to use more that religious arguments to get where you want to go. Furthermore, with some folks the religious arguments end up being counterproductive. All I’m sayin’.

The publicity is good for both sides. A mother speaking up for life is a positive message. In Tebow’s specific case it also allows people to think through the additional risks that a mother incurs with a placental abrution. Pam Tebow made a rational choice that worked out well for her. Other mothers in similar circumstances can learn from her story and consider the options and their consequences.

Forest for the trees Kinley. Simply put, if you want to end abortion on demand in this country, you’ll need to change the minds of well over 50% of the voters. I’m simply observing that achieving that goal is going to require more than the recitation of bible verses.

dakine, I get lost in almost any point (however rational or instruction) you make. It’s because you quite honestly can’t hide your distain for organized faith even just a little bit. I get lost in the irony of you trying to tell us to be more tolerant and open-minded as you throw out accusations of “Holy Wars” being waged (among other Christian put-downs). Do you even notice that you do it?

Well, I spent the better aspect of that whole thread saying that women are oftentimes victims as much as the baby in abortions, due to the deceitful nature of those in authority.

You didn’t mention any of that, or how ApollyonBob kept trying to insist that we’d have to kill the girls, too, if we were to be consistent about it, to which, myself, and other posters with half a brain, said you-are-a-nut.

So, let’s recap. I hold guilty the politicians who deceive the people, the “doctors” who perform these ghoulish procedures, and the PP management who actively press scared young women into something that many of them will never recover from.

But, see, we have this wonderful self-contradiction of liberalism where we can’t harm the animals, and you should NEVER HARM A HUMAN BEING, but you can stick a knife in that fetus, no problem. So, in the end, your entire shtick and OUTRAGEOUS OUTRAGE isn’t terribly impressive.

What it comes down to is that I am a man, and that means my job is to defend the weak, show respect and honor to women, look out for the children,and get in the face of the bullies. This is but one aspect of fulfilling the duty that all men share.

And I don’t mean that the argument stops at faith. That’s just where it begins. Do you think anyone would even care about abortions if they began with a science point of view? “Oh I sure wish we had less abortions in the US because based on the science it’s not….” What? Logical?

Maybe. NOW is a mindless advocacy group, less interested in honest debate than shilling on behalf of a cause. Perhaps, they are trying to justify their salaries, or attempting to use the ad to increase their own donations.

A lot of women wouldn’t take the risk that Pam Tebow took. However, it is good for them to hear the Tebow story and to be informed enough to ask their doctor the right questions.

Are you actually arguing that only secular arguments are effective?
As I pointed out, the vast majority of people in this country are not secular in their outlook.

MarkTheGreat on February 2, 2010 at 2:26 PM

Absolutely not Mark. BTW, however, while most Americans don’t self-identify as “secular”, I think studies have shown that a very large percentage of Americans while considering themselves to be spiritual, they don’t participate regularly in any organized religion. Let’s break down (simplistically, I admit) the pro-choice folks:

1. Organized religion types – religious and secular arguments would be appropriate for these folks

2. Nominal Christians or those with spiritual beliefs, but not organized religion types – this is a big group of people, and I don’t think religious arguments will hold much sway with these people. Secular arguments based on evolved morality and science probably the best bet.

3. The non-religious – obviously on secular arguments will work for them.

Again, my point is know who you’re trying to convince, and make your arguments accordingly.

Well, I spent the better aspect of that whole thread saying that women are oftentimes victims as much as the baby in abortions, due to the deceitful nature of those in authority.

You didn’t mention any of that, or how ApollyonBob kept trying to insist that we’d have to kill the girls, too, if we were to be consistent about it, to which, myself, and other posters with half a brain, said you-are-a-nut.

So, let’s recap. I hold guilty the politicians who deceive the people, the “doctors” who perform these ghoulish procedures, and the PP management who actively press scared young women into something that many of them will never recover from.

But, see, we have this wonderful self-contradiction of liberalism where we can’t harm the animals, and you should NEVER HARM A HUMAN BEING, but you can stick a knife in that fetus, no problem. So, in the end, your entire shtick and OUTRAGEOUS OUTRAGE isn’t terribly impressive.

People without faith will never get it.

OmahaConservative on February 2, 2010 at 2:39 PM
And that sums the thread up.

KinleyArdal on February 2, 2010 at 2:49 PM

–And you did. But you also wrote what I quoted. So, rather than trying to guess what would you say to a woman who was planning an abortion, I’ll ask you. Would you tell her she was evil? What would you say? Cause it sure looks like you’d tell her she was committing murder.

Jimbo3 on February 2, 2010 at 3:00 PM
What would “you” say to a late second trimester woman who was on the verge of aborting the baby?

hawkdriver on February 2, 2010 at 3:05 PM

–I’d want to know why she was having the abortion and why she was having it then. If there was a very serious physical health issue or a very serious problem with the baby, I might be okay with it. Otherwise, unlikely I’d be okay with it.

First, I apologize for the snark/mean-spiritedness regarding religion. Bottom line: I have no patience for fundamentalism of any kind, religious or otherwise. Fact of the matter is that most of the most adamant pro-lifers are unapologetically fundamentalist in their approach to ending abortion on demand in the US. Doesn’t work with me, and it doesn’t work with any pro-choice person I know. If you want to tell me that your faith leads you to believe that abortion is wrong and should be prohibited, I’ll listen and understand your point of view, but if you want to convince me that I should change my mind on the subject and only use your religious beliefs to do so, you’ll get nowhere with me. Make the argument that a fertilized egg is “life” from a legal, moral and scientific point of view entitled to the protections of the US constitution, and you’ll have a convert.

A lot of women wouldn’t take the risk that Pam Tebow took. However, it is good for them to hear the Tebow story and to be informed enough to ask their doctor the right questions.

dedalus on February 2, 2010 at 2:57 PM

Sometimes it just helps to know that other women were told that there was no hope – and yet it turned out ok. It is very hard to go against a doctor’s pronouncement even if you know you should. There is a LOT of pressure to believe doctors when they say it is better to kill your child than let it live. I have been there. I know. My son is also glad I choose life even though he isn’t going to win the Heisman Trophy.

I don’t know exactly what the numbers are on this issue, and I’m sure it varies wildly by region and state, but the point is that in order to end abortion on demand in this country, you have some minds to change. Agree?

Without some basis of faith, I don’t see where you could presume to have any position on abortion at all. If there were no greater calling to answer to, what does it matter what she does? If there were no morals given to us, who are any of us to tell others what to do? I can only imagine that by your thinking, you would conclude, it’s her body, the baby is part of it until born and that she can do what she wants. What fact from science could sway you otherwise?

Without my faith, I make no presumption or offer no opinions about anything anyone else does.

The abortion crowd knows that with new imaging technology, better medical care of tough preganancies, and much better information, they need to suppress as much as they can to keep the industry alive. You only have to go to liveaction.org to see how they now have to lie and cheat to drive women into abortions to keep themselves going.

But they should keep up the protest of this ad. They should get more and more vocal! That way, they are using their resources to make more and more people aware of the Tebow story and getting it to many, many more people than even the Superbowl ad would have. They are doing a great job making people aware of his mother’s choice! Sometimes all publicity is good publicity, and they are both helping get the story out and pointing out their own hipocrisy that they are pro-choice by arguing against open debate . . .

1. I hope you would agree that it is possible to have a moral underpinning to the way one lives his/her life without Christianity being part of the equation. Certain moral imperatives long pre-date Christianity and exist independently as the result of societal evolution and human hard wiring. I can’t believe you would be so full of arrogance and hubris as to think that only Christians can be moral beings.

2. If a fertilized egg is determined scientifically to be a “life” from a legal/moral POV, then abortion on demand should be prohibited unless the rights of the mother outweigh those of the embryo. Answering that question may be very difficult, but once answered the proper legal outcome is absolutely obvious.

The Super Bowl, because of CBS’ policy of refusing political ads, is not a public forum. It’s like they’re renting an auditorium, posting a sign that says “No Protesters,” and then letting one side in through the back door at the last minute. Pro-life groups are not the ones being silenced here. CBS’ selective enforcement of their policy amounts to an actual policy of prior restraint on pro-choice viewpoints. That’s their right, but it’s hardly intolerance to point out the basic unfairness of their behavior.

Have you checked into this? Has CBS actually stated no opposing viewpoints may be expressed? Did they refuse to accept payment for ads advocating abortion, or stating the pro-choice side of the argument?

People aren’t simply pointing out this alleged “unfairness”. They are calling for the ad to be pulled, rending garments and gnashing teeth over a message with which they disagree seeing airtime. That is intolerant, you’d think the side who have beaten that word to death over the years would be able to recognize it in action; but that would require some self-examination, something of which they are incapable.

Pro-life groups are not the ones being silenced here. CBS’ selective enforcement of their policy amounts to an actual policy of prior restraint on pro-choice viewpoints. That’s their right, but it’s hardly intolerance to point out the basic unfairness of their behavior.

I don’t believe anybody has argued that pro life groups are being silenced. The problem comes from the reflexive desire of pro abortion groups to call for the ad to be stifled when they themselves profess to be champions of free expression and tolerance of dissent. As long as they are the ones expressing themselves and “dissenting”. To borrow a quotation from William F. Buckley: “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”

Now another moment where you run afoul of the facts; this is in no way “prior restraint”. Prior restraint is a governmental or judicial interference with expression. Don’t use terms you do not understand in order to attempt to sound informed. You simply make yourself look ignorant.

The ad is prominently backed by Focus on the Family — a name curiously absent from Ed’s post. Focus on the Family explicitly supports banning abortion:
We desire to end the practice of abortion: making it both illegal and unthinkable.
The intent of the ad is plain:
To imply that abortion is morally wrong even when the health of the mother is at risk, and
To leverage Tebow’s celebrity to raise the profile of a radical anti-abortion group.
I don’t know how anyone has managed to convince themselves that the ad is remotely apolitical

So you and Gloria Allred are both endowed with the gift of divination and know what the ad says before it has been released and before you have seen it? If the descriptions are accurate the ad points out the joys of family and that it is in fact a life growing inside the mother. Hardly a hateful or offensive message.

As for leveraging celebrity to advance “radical” beliefs, I’ll wait anxiously for liberals to decry this practice by the droves of celebrity pundits, actors, musicians, talk show hosts, etc. who use their celebrity to advance their causes.

I’m pro-choice from a legal standpoint and anti-abortion personally. The behavior I see from groups like NOW over this ad pushes me away from pro-choice arguments because of the irrational behavior.

Most of the Supreme Court’s verdict in Roe v Wade rested upon two sentences. “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to an answer.”

Although the sentences sounded both innocuous and unpretentious, they were neither. The Supreme Court’s non-decision was not innocuous. It overturned state laws that protected the unborn and has resulted in over 50 million abortions in the United States.

The Supreme Court clearly stated that it does not know when life begins and then violated the very spirit of this legal principle by acting as if it just proved that no life existed in the womb.

In my vocabulary, the word “pro-choice” does not exist. Roe vs Wade should never have been signed into law. The Supreme Court sidestepped their responsibility in failing to give a proper determination of when life begins. Once might say, well they are not scientists, so how then can they make such a determination. Exactly. If they cannot say when life begins, how can they say when life ends. Thus, to me and many others, the law is bogus. Pro-choice equates to proabortion. If you stand silently by and watch innocent life destroyed, you cannot say you are prolife.

There will always be minds to change. A March, 2008 survey by Rasmussen revealed that 77 % of Americans believed in Christ and His resurrection. I count myself among them. Earlier in this thread, I quoted from princeton.edu concerning life beginning at conception. That was scientific. I can also provide quotes from The Bible to back up that scientific fact. Believerslike myself, my brother Hawkdriver, and numerous others on this site can discuss a point of view from both the scientific and Jueodo-Christian points of view. We do not suscbribe to the belief system that allows morality and ethics to be relative and constantly shifting. Because of our faith and the command given to us to share our grace and peace with others, we do so. Boldly going out in faith to inform women that there are other choices besides abortion. Unfortunately, the choices that pro-life advocates are giving these women do not seem to be the choices that the pro-abortion crowd wants them to hear. Hence all the consternation and ginned-up concern over a TV spot they haven’t even seen yet. Very tolerant.

Make the argument that a fertilized egg is “life” from a legal, moral and scientific point of view entitled to the protections of the US constitution, and you’ll have a convert.

Actually, you’re mistaken. You simply need to make the argument in one of those dimensions. If you do so, the protections afforded by the US Constitution apply. And as I’ve said before, proving that life begins at conception is easily accomplished with a simple exercise in logic.

Does a child represent a “life”? Yes.

Do children have fathers? Yes.

Would those children have “life” without their father’s genetic material? No.

When do those children receive their father’s genetic material? At conception.

So…would the child have “life” without the genetic material that it receives from the father at conception? No.

Actually, you’re mistaken. You simply need to make the argument in one of those dimensions. If you do so, the protections afforded by the US Constitution apply. And as I’ve said before, proving that life begins at conception is easily accomplished with a simple exercise in logic.

Does a child represent a “life”? Yes.

Do children have fathers? Yes.

Would those children have “life” without their father’s genetic material? No.

When do those children receive their father’s genetic material? At conception.

So…would the child have “life” without the genetic material that it receives from the father at conception? No.

Very reasonable and civil post. If that in fact is how you go about your business of convincing pro-choice folks that abortion should be banned, then hat’s off to you. That’s really all I was saying. BTW, the timeless moral imperatives to which I was referring are along the lines of things such as not killing or harming others, not stealing other’s property, etc….you know, the basics. These moral values really don’t change and have existed for thousands of years independently of any religion.

rvastar on February 2, 2010 at 4:05 PM

I’m really not mistaken. And your little logical exercise is really kind of simplistic and silly. However, I’m about at the point where it’s become very difficult to argue that from a scientific POV life doesn’t begin at conception. What is left is the very difficult legal and moral discussion as to when civil rights attach to such a life relative and in balance with the rights of the mother. Tough stuff.

What is left is the very difficult legal and moral discussion as to when civil rights attach to such a life relative and in balance with the rights of the mother. Tough stuff.

dakine on February 2, 2010 at 4:25 PM

It’s only tough if you think that some people deserve to live more than other people do. Once you believe that even a small or in some way defective, person deserves as many rights as a large or non-defective person, it’s easy.

As with slavery, as long as whites could convince themselves that they were more human than blacks then slavery was a “right” that some people could exercise over others who were less human.

But once a large majority started seeing blacks as humans with different colored skin, it was only a matter of time before the end of legalized slavery came.

1) They hate Christians. Period. Anyone who has been around the internet for any length of time should know that a Christian can’t post that the sky is blue without 10 liberals responding with death threats.

2) They have no response to it. None. The only counter to the Tebow ad would be for a mother and child to appear in another commercial and say they regretted not having an abortion. Yeah, that’d work. Show a haggard mother and her rapist/murderer/drug addict son (on death row), with the message that abortion would have been the better choice.

But once a large majority started seeing blacks as humans with different colored skin, it was only a matter of time before the end of legalized slavery came.

Lily on February 2, 2010 at 4:39 PM

This is called humanizing. It’s what the proabortion crowd is most afraid of. The ad by Tebow and his mother puts a human face to “what if.” In order to keep abortion percolating, it’s necessary to dehumanize it and remind others over and over ad nauseum that it is a right and a privilege. When that wears thin, they drag out the specter of back alley abortions with ooat hangers.

And your little logical exercise is really kind of simplistic and silly.

Then it will be “simple” for you to point out the errors in my logic :)

What is left is the very difficult legal and moral discussion as to when civil rights attach to such a life relative and in balance with the rights of the mother. Tough stuff.

Only for people who value convenience over the hard realities of life.

If it can be demonstrated scientifically that human life begins at conception, then that human life should be afforded the protections of the US Constitution that are enumerated in the 14th Amendment:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

As such, the rights of the child are the same as the rights of the mother. Now tell us: does a child have the right to terminate his/her mother’s “life” because they choose to? Of course not. Ipso facto, that child’s mother has no right to terminate his/her life because she chooses to.

And that includes instances of rape, incest, or health-of-the-mother. Why? Because the only constitutionally viable defense for person inside the US to take the life of another is self-defense. And self-defense cannot be claimed in any of these instances – even health-of-the-mother – because, by necessity, a claim of self-defense must be predicated upon the perception of imminent intentional harm.

Now I understand that that probably shocks your delicate liberal sensibilities but so be it. Abortion is either wrong or it isn’t. And if it is, then there is simply no justification for it.

I’m far from a liberal, and I think I explained my political philosophy pretty clearly upthread. Up to the point of that last unnecessary and gratuitous sentence, I thought that was a pretty well-reasoned post. You make a compelling legal argument, and I’m real close to changing my position. Once you stipulate that life begins at conception, then the legal argument under the Constitution will center at what point the fertilized egg becomes a legal “person”. Spinning it forward, if a fertilized egg is legally determined to be a person, then abortion on demand becomes illegal and it becomes almost impossible to justify abortions in the case of incest or abortion. We’ll have to agree to disagree regarding “health of the mother” abortions.

If it can be demonstrated scientifically that human life begins at conception, then that human life should be afforded the protections of the US Constitution that are enumerated in the 14th Amendment:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

rvastar on February 2, 2010 at 5:18 PM

–One problem with your argument is that this part of the Constitution seems to be talking about persons “born” or “naturalized”. The second problem with your argument is that there’s no evidence that anyone who wrote or interpreted the US Constitution thought this applied to fetuses. The third problem is the next-to-last sentence applies to state action, not private action (criminal laws).

Apparently NOW feels this commercial is an inappropriate message for America to see for 30 seconds, but women in bikini selling beer is the right one. I would like to meet the genius at NOW who made that decision.

Jimbo, you’ve definitely keyed into some issues that might potentially rise if and when the time comes. If Roe goes down, the whole thing will be turned on its head and the states that permit abortion will be at the center of the issue. Some would be father in a state permitting abortion will sue on behalf of his unborn child to prevent an abortion and the Supremes will be asked to address just the issues you and rvastar raise.

Now I understand that that probably shocks your delicate liberal sensibilities but so be it. Abortion is either wrong or it isn’t. And if it is, then there is simply no justification for it.

rvastar on February 2, 2010 at 5:18 PM

I am anti-abortion…but your argument doesn’t stand up.
First, the fetus can’t make that decisions, regarding life of mother. We have consistently ruled that children do not have the same rights as adults, nor the same responsibility. The reasoning is obvious.

All persons born

Unfortunately, fetuses have not been “born”, by definition. So the definition of “person” is up for review.

Why not take the simple argument, the taking and execution of a life for convenience is just plain wrong. You don’t need a constitution to be civilized. To say the trauma of a mother giving birth to a baby she does not want is greater in comparison to killing a baby is almost embarrassing is as an argument.
What moral human crushes a healthy baby’s head because they make a few bucks? What human sucks a healthy baby out of a woman’s body, after killing it with injections, and says that is better for the mother and for society.
I seriously believe this point in time will be looked back on as the dark ages of humanity, it will be written about and people will be shocked to actually read about doctors, leaving living babies on the table to die…stating that as long as the umbilical cord is connected, it is not viable.
No, you don’t need to be a constitutional authority to know, killing a living baby is wrong…

I seriously believe this point in time will be looked back on as the dark ages of humanity, it will be written about and people will be shocked to actually read about doctors, leaving living babies on the table to die…stating that as long as the umbilical cord is connected, it is not viable.
No, you don’t need to be a constitutional authority to know, killing a living baby is wrong…

right2bright on February 2, 2010 at 7:07 PM

Those are visceral arguments based on what is visible. However, the argument that conception creates a new citizen with rights is basing it on something other than the visual similarity to infants.

The Tebow’s Chose to do a 30 second commercial that informs people of their life story. In Typical Liberal Progressive Hypocrisy, NOW president Terry O’Neill objects to this Celebration of Life as an “intrusive inappropriate argument” against a Woman’s right to choose.
Anyone who agrees, defends or supports this Hypocritical Nazi B!tch and her organization is an enemy of Life… And I promise to not stand in your way when you choose to Not Reproduce.

–And telling people who are considering abortion that they’re evil monsters and that you want to have politicians executed if they won’t make abortion illegal should probably wait for your second or third conversation. Just a helpful hint.

Jimbo3 on February 2, 2010 at 1:50 PM

Jimbo, if you were sent back in time to the 1850′s, and you met a southern slaveholder who conversed with you as to how to reduce a recalcitrant slave to submission, what would you answer?

And if the fellow ignored your advice and began whipping said slave in front of you, what would you say?

And then, afterwards, what would you say if the slaveholder
a) regretted his act, or
b) bragged about his act to others?

If (b), would you consider him a good person or a bad person, and if a bad person, just how much of a bad person?

Here’s the money quote. This is a sterling example about how liberal definitions fail. They fallaciously equate an innocent term (choice) and then hide behind it for years—and confronting challenges to abortion as a war upon choice. This columnist is right in identifying this fallacy because, as she asserts correctly, that these groups are more pro-abortion than they are choice. Pam Tebow exercised her choice, and wants to tell the story–a story that the “pro-choicers” should be warm to hearing.

This is a splendid example of the rank hypocrisy and language hijackings that go on in the left. I commend the Tebow’s for standing up for their own choices.

Those like her disgust me. This is downright silly and hypocritical. I thought women were all grown up. Can they not handle a commercial. IF that is difficult were are in more trouble than I thought. It is bad enough that far too many women do not act as a protector of their children and rather trade their lives for orgasms or material things.

That’s really all I was saying. BTW, the timeless moral imperatives to which I was referring are along the lines of things such as not killing or harming others, not stealing other’s property, etc….you know, the basics. These moral values really don’t change and have existed for thousands of years independently of any religion.

Please show me where these precepts have existed “independently of any religion.”

There will always be minds to change. A March, 2008 survey by Rasmussen revealed that 77 % of Americans believed in Christ and His resurrection. I count myself among them. Earlier in this thread, I quoted from princeton.edu concerning life beginning at conception. That was scientific. I can also provide quotes from The Bible to back up that scientific fact. Believerslike myself, my brother Hawkdriver, and numerous others on this site can discuss a point of view from both the scientific and Jueodo-Christian points of view. We do not suscbribe to the belief system that allows morality and ethics to be relative and constantly shifting. Because of our faith and the command given to us to share our grace and peace with others, we do so. Boldly going out in faith to inform women that there are other choices besides abortion. Unfortunately, the choices that pro-life advocates are giving these women do not seem to be the choices that the pro-abortion crowd wants them to hear. Hence all the consternation and ginned-up concern over a TV spot they haven’t even seen yet. Very tolerant.

They are pro-choice and acknowledging it is easy for people like Tebow’s mom who make the “right” choice, to appear in a commercial about how great she is and her choice was. Arguably maybe those who make the “wrong” choice should feel bad, or realize how much better they might feel if they choose life, but more likely they will just feel ashamed. And all that accomplishes is further emotional trauma, and marginalization for these women.

Why should they feel marginalized if they believe they made the right choice? Emotional trauma always occurs when one realizes they have made the wrong choice, and is absent when they realize they made the right choice.

Such feelings are great incentivizers to avoid making the wrong choice the next time around.

Not to mention that it is silly to me that the argument seems to be that Heisman trophy winners are more valuable than a normal child’s life. Don’t have an abortion because, beside the fact that you are killing your potential child, you could be killing your meal ticket. I think Tebow’s mom’s choice is admirable, not because Tebow is a Heisman trophy winner, but because she was willing to put her life on the line.

conservativeinthecity on February 2, 2010 at 11:12 AM

How does this ad make the point that a potential Heisman Trophy winner is more deserving of life than the child in the womb next door? I doubt the ad comes anywhere near saying that…. Not that Tebow’s mother knew her kid might become a “meal ticket”, but…

Every pro-choice woman I’ve ever seen interviewed is uneasily protective of their potential choice, and views killing the “tissue mass” as beating back a challenge to their own meal ticket. My favorite is the LA Times interview a few years back of the young female lawyer who felt she had to choose between parenthood and a career in law — and had chosen the law career. She was justifying it by pointing out how many good things she now had. As I read the article, the unbidden thought was “but you felt you had to kill your child to make it — couldn’t you have possibly done it without killing your child? It would have been harder, but couldn’t you?”

I also want to know what it would take to change a pro-abortionists mind. Seriously, have you not already seen and heard all the evidence for life, the images of death? What would it take?

I love this ‘argument’, though the ending is of course terribly sad.

“Eleven years ago while giving an anesthetic for a ruptured ectopic pregnancy (at 8 weeks gestation), I was handed what I believe was the smallest living human ever seen. The embryonic sac was intact and transparent. Within the sac was a tiny human male swimming extremely vigorously in the amniotic fluid, while attached to the wall by the umbilical cord. This tiny human was perfectly developed, with long, tapering fingers, feet and toes. It was almost transparent, as regards the skin, and the delicate arteries and veins were prominent to the ends of the fingers. The baby was extremely alive and swam about the sac approximately one time per second, with a natural swimmer’s stroke. This tiny human did not look at all like the photos and drawings and models of ‘embryos’ which I had seen, nor did it look like a few embryos I have been able to observe since then, obviously because this one was alive! When the sac was opened, the tiny human immediately lost his life and took on the appearance of what is accepted as the appearance of an embryo at this stage of life (with blunt extremities etc.).”
-Paul E. Rockwell, M.DA persons a person no matter how small.

massrighty on February 2, 2010 at 8:35 PM

Someone above wrote something about not needing religion because right and wrong is hard wired into human beings… Sounds like C.S. Lewis. It is hardwired…by God.

Someone above wrote something about not needing religion because right and wrong is hard wired into human beings… Sounds like C.S. Lewis. It is hardwired…by God.

pannw on February 2, 2010 at 8:43 PM

I agree. God’s law weighs like an anvil on the conscience of those who are involved in this atrocity. I pray that it does, I pray that it continues to do so.

A few months back, I took part in a 40-days for Life Walk that is a prayer walk in front of abortion clinics across the country. We prayed over and over again for the hearts of those who seek abortions, and for those who perform them to be opened. Shortly thereafter, a woman who used to be a director of PP turned and now tells how her heart was changed after seeing ultrasound images of developing babies. Today, we are now bearing witness to the further drawing out of those who support this heinous act by this Tebow ad. Mere coincidence–doubt it. I say–answered prayers.